9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2057 - HC - Indian LawsRight of third party to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat before the High Court - litigating sides had excluded the third party from the litigation - HELD THAT - The property situated in Survey No. 104 which is known as Vadjai area, was the suit property in the 2000 suit for partition and separate possession and the same survey number involving a larger area of land in Vadjai area was the suit property in the 2017 suit, in which these Petitioners were excluded. As such, if at all there is any fraud played by the Plaintiff (Bhausaheb) or the Defendants (Kondabai and Lahanabai) in the 2017 suit, it relates to the property Survey No. 104 in Vadjai area and which, therefore, fortifies the contention of the Petitioners that the property admeasuring 3 Acres 35 Gunthas, which was subject matter of the 2000 suit is the suit property in the 2017 suit, which is shown to be admeasuring 7 Acres 19 Gunthas. In the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS ANR. VERSUS KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY ORS. 2017 (9) TMI 1731 - SUPREME COURT and STATE OF PUNJAB ORS. VERSUS SHRI GANPAT RAJ 2006 (9) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT , that the third party would be covered by the meaning aggrieved person and as is held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Batchu Subba Lakshmi 2009 (12) TMI 1064 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , such a third party can challenge the Lok Adalat award provided the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is, prima facie, made out. The impugned Lok Adalat award is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a third party can challenge the award of the Lok Adalat before the High Court on the ground of exclusion from the litigation. 2. The legitimacy of the Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2017 in RCS No. 730/2017. 3. The applicability of fraud and misrepresentation as grounds to challenge the Lok Adalat award. 4. The legal standing of the petitioners as "aggrieved parties." Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a third party can challenge the award of the Lok Adalat before the High Court on the ground of exclusion from the litigation: The primary issue is the ability of a third party to challenge a Lok Adalat award when they have been excluded from the litigation. The petitioners, aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2017, claimed exclusion from the litigation concerning the partition and possession of ancestral properties. The court analyzed precedents, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Batchu Subba Lakshmi vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu, which established that ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge a Lok Adalat award in a writ petition. However, in extraordinary cases involving fraud or misrepresentation, a third party could maintain a writ petition if there is prima facie evidence of such fraud or misrepresentation. 2. The legitimacy of the Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2017 in RCS No. 730/2017: The petitioners argued that the award was fraudulent as it excluded them despite their legitimate interest in the property. The court noted that RCS No. 730/2017 was filed on 30.06.2017 and quickly compromised in the Lok Adalat within 8 days, raising suspicions of fraud. The court found that the property in question was part of a previous suit (RCS No. 447/2000) where all family members, including the petitioners, were parties. The exclusion of the petitioners in the 2017 suit suggested a prima facie case of fraud. 3. The applicability of fraud and misrepresentation as grounds to challenge the Lok Adalat award: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab vs. Ganpat Raj, which emphasized that a Lok Adalat can only pass an award based on a compromise or settlement between the parties. The court concluded that the petitioners had sufficiently demonstrated prima facie evidence of fraud and misrepresentation in the 2017 suit, as the same property was involved in both the 2000 and 2017 suits, yet the petitioners were excluded in the latter. 4. The legal standing of the petitioners as "aggrieved parties": The court examined whether the petitioners could be considered "aggrieved parties" capable of challenging the Lok Adalat award. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy clarified that any aggrieved party could challenge a Lok Adalat award. The court extended this interpretation to include third parties who have been excluded from the litigation but can demonstrate fraud or misrepresentation. Thus, the petitioners were deemed "aggrieved parties" with the right to challenge the award. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2017 and restoring RCS No. 730/2017 to the file of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ashti. The petitioners were directed to apply for addition as parties in the suit, and the trial court was instructed to proceed on the merits after their inclusion. The court also prohibited the creation of third-party interests or encumbrances on the suit properties without trial court permission, ensuring the integrity of the litigation process.
|
